grannyjack so sorry to read about your son.

That's a good policy of the Samaritans.

Thanks Grannyknot. It is 18 years ago but loss is difficult for so many at this time of year. I have twin GC, boy & a girl aged 5 now. They don't take his place but I feel that we have got back together as a family & the focus has changed.

"Loss is the price we pay for love". Someone said that to me recently, and it was strangely comforting.

Narrowboatnan, thanks for the tip about the Charity Commission. I had a look but feel that there is not enough detail to understand exactly what is going on.

I am also supporting Oxfam less and going to the Shelter and Salvation Army shops instead. I have found over the last year that Oxfam are very assertive, too assertive in fact about Gift Aid, they try to force it upon people without explanation, so I'm giving my unwanted books etc to other charities.

I had what looked like a personal letter recently purporting to be from a doctor doing research into cancer. I wondered how she knew me - surely my medical records were private? - and then realised it was a generic letter. I found that quite disturbing.

So sorry about your son grannyjack.Your information about the Samaritans' acceptable fundraising process is very useful and heartening.

I too hate the freebies and any other ploy that smacks of blackmail via guilt.

The balance between employing a professional workforce to fundraise efficiently and using a disproportionate amount of the money raised is a difficult one. People making donations wish to see the money go directly to the cause they espouse.

I do agree about the problem of many charities targeting the same problem and the danger of diluting and confusing the benefit.

I find it all an emotional minefield - everyone wants to help, but also wants to see the money spent wisely and efficiently. Local charities often feel a better bet; but the big charities need to be there for meeting the cost of major scientific research and global crises.

I support Action Aid, because they develop communities; and also Parkinsons UK because OH is a sufferer.

My husband died of brain cancer three years ago. If cancer charities were combined there would be even less research into brain cancer than there is now. The family give to Brain research uk because it combines research into lots of different problems to do with the brain, such as dementia, MND, Ataxia, and cancer.
I also support Actionaid and Wateraid because clean water is the most important thing, and Actionaid helps communities to get water however they can.
I give money to Shelter, because after water, a roof over your head is the most important.
I also have a direct debit with Viva! because I think they encourage people to use less of the world's resources.
I do not see how any of the charities can be combined satisfactorily with any other without losing out on the integrity they each have.

I hope such adverse publicity and negative feeling towards charities doesn't stop people giving. Charities are feeling the squeeze more than ever and most are doing a wonderful job in raising funds for research, giving aid, setting up and running projects. None of this can be done on a shoestring. If projects are to be researched, implemented and monitored then good management is essential. Staff have to be paid, premises bought or rented, utility bills paid, equipment bought and replaced, etc. McMillan nurses for example are not volunteers, but paid professionals. Overseas aid charities, have by the very definition of their work, huge transport costs. I could go on and on.

No one is forced to give. We can all just say no. I had a phone call from one of my charities recently asking if I could perhaps up my standing order by £2 a month. The request was politiely made and I agreed as I won't miss such a small amount.

Like most people I have 'favourite' charities I support. Some of these because, as some other posters have mentioned, their work has touched my life in some way. I would hate to think someone was denigrating their efforts

What an interesting collection of comments and questions.

Yes - you can see the accounts of charities with a turnover of over £10k on the Charity Commission website. By definition, smaller ones wouldn't have "fat cats' running them. Charities are being encouraged to report the salary of the senior manager.

I fully believe that charities should join up - where appropriate. The joining-up of Age Concern and Help the Aged made so much sense.

I understand that the term "voluntary" comes from the voluntary contributions of the trustees, who are not allowed to be paid for their considerable work and who are ultimately responsible for the charity.

Many registered charities are grant-making organisations which support other charities. Some are ancient, with the aim of "providing a loaf of bread and five pennies to each of the widows of the parish at Christmas". A local trust here was set up in 1795 when wasteland around the town was donated by the landowner for the relief of poverty of the townspeople. When we bought our house, we had to pay £2.25 pa to the trust. These small amounts of money plus investments from selling off the land now amount to £60k pa which is divided up between local groups, on application, and has done a great amount of good.

Nowadays, every charity is set up by volunteers sitting round a kitchen table wanting to "do something" to address a local need. Many remain as community groups, not registered charities, run entirely by volunteers. I'm involved with a swimming club, which must have in place a huge number of policies and procedures to show that it is operating safely. Without the club, many children in our town wouldn't have the opportunity to learn to swim.

The charity which employs me and a dozen others, was set up by parents of disabled children and young people. They saw that their children's social care and educational needs were being met, by and large. However, many of the children attend special schools which can be miles from home, so don't see their peers outside school. Others are in mainstream schools and are ostracised and bullied because of the lack of understanding of the disability or behaviour - a great proportion have some degree of autism. We provide friendships and leisure opportunities with the help of young volunteers.

The total number of employed hours is 11,000 pa, which could only be done by an army of volunteers - and who would manage them?

More than a third of our income comes from the local authority, which outsources much work to the voluntary sector, partly in recognition that they can do a better job. Much more comes from grants - the BIG lottery, and smaller ones. Making applications takes hours - an application to the lottery can cost a charity the best part of £3,000 and may not be successful. A small proportion comes from community fundraising and donations.

All the grant-makers and the local authority require reports, to a greater or lesser extent. This means having administrative systems in place to capture and analyse information. Income and expenditure need to be managed properly - administration is work that must be done. Please do not dismiss fundraising as a waste of money - without it, charities couldn't do what they do. Hospices couldn't possibly run just on street collections and coffee mornings.

Excellent comments on the charity sector, but as a ex-employee of a national medical research charity my heart sinks when I hear of yet another charity being started following the loss of a family member to cancer, or similar life threatening condition. Simply there are far too many charities in the UK vying for our donations and in the cold light of day the diffusion of the money given must logically mean that there is never enough. Consolidation is I feel a thoroughly good idea; but we do need to understand that charities need funds to run administratively, they are employers and have the same costs as any other company.

As a country we are relying more and more on charities and not for profit organisations to do work previousl centrally funded by government. The government saves money but the work the people do still cost to provide from utilities/offices/wages to the delivery of the work! it is not a cheaper option we just move the cost elsewhere under the guise of 'individual choice' and governments can say they have reduced costs